The Role of Media in the Repression-Protest Nexus: a Game-Theoretic Model
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Role of Media in the Repression-Protest Nexus: A Game-Theoretic Model By HeeMin Kim, Jenifer Whitten-Woodring and Patrick James NOTE: This is the Author Accepted Manuscript of an article published the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Published by SAGE. The definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002713520481 Abstract: Idealized independent media function as "watchdogs." Indeed, human rights nongovernmental organizations have argued that media freedom will improve human rights. This makes sense intuitively, yet recent formal and empirical studies show that the effect of independent media varies across regime types. We explore the relationship among media, government and citizen protest movements and employ a game-theoretic model to investigate how the equilibria vary depending on regime type and media independence. In terms of equilibrium, we find that media watchdogging is most active in autocracies (and not in democracies), especially when the government's perceived capability to repress public protest is declining. Uncertainty about the government’s ability to repress plays a central role in accounting for the manifestation of media watchdogging in conjunction with public protest. Illustrations from Tunisia and North Korea are provided to highlight equilibria derived from the formal model that vary as a product of perceptions about the government’s ability to repress. We thank David Faris, Dave Karpf, Philip Potter, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions—any and all mistakes are ours. 1 While the outcomes of the wave of pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa remain uncertain, it is clear that media, especially social media, played an important role in facilitating these protests. Yet, the nature of this role remains contested. Idealized media function as “watchdogs,” keeping government honest and watching out for citizens’ interests, through investigative reporting and challenging government frames.1 It follows that independent media should collectively keep government responsive and responsible to citizens. Indeed, human rights NGOs have argued that media freedom will improve government respect for human rights. This makes sense intuitively, yet recent formal and empirical studies show that the effect of independent media varies across regime types (Whitten-Woodring 2009; Whitten-Woodring and James 2012). Moreover, what happens when media are not free? In January 2011, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain lacked free media. Regardless of their medium, professional journalists, bloggers, and citizens who criticized the government in these countries experienced censorship, fines, imprisonment, harassment, physical attacks and, in some cases death (Freedom House 2011, viii; Committee to Protect Journalists 2012; Reporters Without Borders 2010). Yet some journalists and citizens in these countries persisted in using media, especially social media, to spread news and mobilize opposition. And the people protested. There is a perception that digital media are not subject to government censorship. But NGOs that monitor media freedom offer evidence to the contrary. Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists document attacks on bloggers as well as attacks on journalists—indeed many journalists blog and many bloggers are also journalists. In fact, Snider and Faris (2011, 58) trace the origin of Egypt’s revolution to 2004 and the emergence of “cooperation between digital activists and traditional media practitioners” as well as labor and opposition groups. 2 Although digital media are more difficult to control than print and broadcast media, governments can erect virtual borders by controlling internet service providers, as Egypt did on January 28, 2011. Governments can also limit content through regulations, filtering technologies, and old fashioned threats and intimidation (Freedom House 2012a). Moreover, the same content-tagging technology that makes the web more user friendly can be used by governments to limit citizens’ access (Mailland 2010). Thus, although new communication technologies, in particular the internet and mobile phones, have made it easier and less expensive for news media to reach audiences all over the world, these options are not impervious to government control. As with their predecessors (the telephone, telegraph, radio and television), predictions that the internet and mobile phones would lead to a “borderless” and unregulated information landscape have failed (Goldsmith and Wu 2008). We consider the role of news media, traditional and digital, in domestic conflict. We first review previous research on repression and dissent and identify media as a research priority given its relevance to opportunity and willingness to act. Then we explore the relationship among media, government and citizen protest movements and employ a game-theoretic model to investigate how the equilibria vary depending on regime type, media independence and the probability that government repression will be effective. In terms of equilibrium, we find that media watchdogging is most active in autocracies (and not in democracies), especially when government’s perceived capability to repress protest is declining. As our model offers different equilibria depending on the government's perceived capability to repress protest, we investigate the implications of these results with case illustrations of Tunisia and North Korea, dictatorships with controlled media but different perceived capabilities to repress public protest. 3 Repression and Dissent: Where the Media Come In Just as the events commonly labeled as the Arab Spring were largely unanticipated, so too was the rapid dissolution of the Soviet Union. Protests and revolutions, like all rare events, are difficult to predict. This difficulty stems from our tendency to overlook the long-term effects of repression and the interplay between government and dissenters (Rasler 1996). Events are contingent rather than easily determined, which suggests that the nexus of repression and dissent is a topic best handled through an approach guided by the framework of opportunity and willingness (Most and Starr 1989; Cioffi-Revilla and Starr 1995). This is the path followed by Poe (2004) in a synthesis of results from studies of government decision-making about repression. The overarching categories of strength and threat are used to organize a wide range of factors that identify whether a sufficient degree of opportunity and willingness exists to cause a decision to repress; among the most relevant conditions are past repression, absence of democracy, lack of economic development, war involvement, threats and dissent, population size and military involvement in government (Poe 2004, 22-23, 31). The present study extends the opportunity and willingness frame of reference to consider the three-way interaction involving the government with the public and media. When work on repression and dissent is reviewed, the most frequent point of departure is Tullock (1971). His formal model of revolution created a rigorous foundation; key variables are the rewards and punishments from the regime and rebel movement, along with the risk of injury from fighting. While media can be expected to emphasize public goods when reporting dissent, it is also interesting to consider the unimportance of those considerations in determining whether support for a revolutionary movement will occur. Instead, free riding and a focus on personal gain are the default expectations for any collective action movement aimed at overturning a government 4 (Tullock 1971, 92, 93, 99). From this point of view, there should be a lack of willingness to participate in collective action against the government. Research on protest movements converged on resource mobilization and the role of political opportunities, with various studies addressing elements of both. Resource mobilization theorists characterized social movements as rational reactions to inequities in institutional power relationships that came about when a shift in resources lowered the costs of mobilization and improved the chances of success (McCarthy and Zald 1977). The challenge with this approach was to define these resources and then identify their shifts (Jenkins 1983). How, then, might some dissent be explained, even in the face of the powerful free rider effect against willingness toward dissent? Roeder (1982) develops and tests a multivariate model of how widespread participation might come about. Time allocated to revolutionary activity rises with the degree of profitability and other characteristics of the same nature (Roeder 1982, 11, 20). Yet, as Mason (1984, 1042) points out, the free rider effect and pure self-interest on which it is based cannot explain how certain types of behavior begin. Why, for instance, would rioting start in the first place? This question finds an answer through public goods provision, such as taking action against government discrimination on racial grounds (Mason 1984, 1043). Thus some combination of public and private goods can tell a more complete story about how dissent begins and is sustained once in place. Political opportunity theorists focus on the role of political opportunities and how their expansion or contraction influences protest movements (McAdam 1982). Kuran (1989) produces a formal model that focuses on how opposition can grow. Open trials and press freedom are significant variables in creating opportunity for dissent. Interestingly,